Any chance of a review of the FWR moderation rules in light of Maya Forstater's success in court please?

The thing is that those posters who complain that trans issues have swamped FWR are, as has been repeatedly said, free to post topics on anything they choose, and anyone can join in the resulting discussion. Each thread is separate, after all. The interest self-regulates, so that topics nothing to do with GC/trans issues will have as many posts in them as there is interest in that topic. Which seems fine to me - I don't understand why there is a need for a split?

For the 90 millionth time. How can you have a feminism board if you can't define what a woman is?

The topic is Feminism and Women's Rights. Centred on women.

Naturally, I would have no objection to a trans rights section, but may I suggest it sits separately to feminism?

To quote from a recent email from MNHQ (signed, as ever, anonymously)

We consider the phrase, "males who identify as women" to be uncivil and a breach of the Talk guidelines so we deleted the post

Why? in the context of a thread about an article called 'Transwomen aren't women', what was uncivil about that phrase?

Having separate boards for different kinds of feminism seems a bit ridiculous. Who the hell even knows what kind of feminist they are these days?

Jesus Christ! Mumsnet is literally the only place that I can come to discuss GC views, and now there's people making veiled threats re court cases and 'are you on the right side of the law?' WTAF?! Get over yourselves!

Justine

"repeatedly trotting out ‘transwomen are men" can be compared to Christians repeatedly saying that god is real. Which IS legal and preventing them saying so is a violation of their rights (and I say that as an atheist)

I appreciate the problems you have with threats from pressure groups, but the solution is not to ignore or workaround human rights as defined by the law of the land

Having a separate area for those who come under a protected characteristic and restricting them to it is also problematic and might be said to hark back to early US civil rights.

the original request to MNHQ to rethink the censorship women experience here when they want to talk about the facts of male people using spaces and provisions set aside for women.

This new board is just mn changing the subject.

If they are treating women with 'GC' views differently to women without 'GC' views, I don't see how a new board gets them off the hook?

It's a bit like having the infant feeding topic but carving off a separate section for breastfeeding only.

PS: not everyone is going to be like me and just go elsewhere because trying to parse posts into acceptability and make them still make sense. Some really might have at MNHQ in some very uncomfortable ways.

I'll get my coat again now and go where I can speak freely within the law.

With all respect - even without a court judgement saying I'm protected! - Justine, this is you throwing a dead cat so that we talk about something else.

As I see it, what has happened over the years is that MNHQ has beens subject to a sustained campaign by TRAs to censor feminist voices on this website. They've threatened litigation, they've lobbied advertisers. I'm sure it's been enervating. I sympathise.

In response, MNHQ has placated and placated and placated. Additionally, there have been staffing changes - Kate gone and being as GC as they come over on the Twitter, rogue interns revealing iP addresses and going unsanctioned, a man now in charge of moderating the speech of women. No offence to Michael personally but as we all know, the introduction of men into primarily female space inevitably changes things.

But now we have a court judgement. What, Justine, if the other side becomes as aggressive as the TRAs? Does the development of ever increasingly placatory policies and moderating attitudes and actions in favour of genderism now constitute illegal discrimination against GC women? What if some women start saying they do and invoking lawyers and advertisers in the light of this judgement?

All we're saying is that this is an important and far-reaching judgement as Maya's solicitor Paul Daly has pointed out.

Are you sure you're on the right side of it now that you are more censorious than Twitter? And will you reconsider these policies?

The response I was expecting was:

If we allow users to use the term "TIM/TIF" then we will need to allow users to also use the term "Cis" (or worse, "terf" which I thank MNHQ profusely for banning, during an era of it being used regularly as a term of abuse on Facebook and Twitter).

I was not expecting this:

"No we won't revisit the forum rules, actually we're going to push all of you to a new unknown part of the website off feminism chat"

Kaay. Interesting. Not comfortable with that myself. Quite surprised in fact.

It is rather infantilising to think that adults cannot scroll past titles that they don't agree with or want to engage with.

A little like the push to declare that adults are acutely harmed and need strict protection when the words 'women and ....' is used in communications about women's health.

I think the FWR board should be left as it is and the posting guidelines reviewed if necessary.

For people who are easily upset or prefer twee, sanitised conversations, then a different board can be created for them with separate guidelines. FWR is fine the way it is.

The issues - so-called 'feminist ones' and those related to trans, sex and gender, that are, in other words, in some way about the current debate that feminism and feminists have been forced to expend their energy engaging in at the expense of other, pressing, issues are not analytically or practically separate.

The only people who have asked for separate boards are those who disagree with the GC position - in other words, not the core of FWR and indeed those who do not take a GC approach. .

Monitoring feminist, that is.

Just thinking more about the Black Mumsnetters board. I don't think the women who campaigned for that wanted other posters to relinquish an existing board did they?

They wanted somewhere to discuss issues that affect them uniquely and that they have a special interest in, so that's what they campaigned for.

Could the people who don't want to post on FWR for what ever reason do that?

This is a really bad idea and would be unworkable, as well as allowing trolls to police the site.

To be fair, they already do. And they are still going to have to monitor all the site in case a nasty feminist posts something unacceptable in 'self catering holidays' board.

Monitoring is, and always will be a full time job.

Inever

Yep, just thinking it through further (multi tasking with a 3 yr old.) that was my point about "you'd still have conversations about sex and gender."

This is a really bad idea and would be unworkable, as well as allowing trolls to police the site.
What are women's rights?
The right to organise as a discrete group ? The right to be consulted on issues which affect us? The right to be able to participate in public life without fearing for our safety?
The right to access appropriate medical care and our needs to be monitored and taken into account by health authorities? The right to a work environment which is not hostile to women? The right to not be discriminated against because of our sex? Etc etc etc....

Would Mumsnet consider all of these topics to have a place on the FWR boards or will they be hidden away because all of them have the potential to clash with the wishes of transwomen to be seen as members of the female sex?
There would be no topics left on the FWR board.

Well the aim here is to facilitate the many requests we've had for a reorganisation from those who are keen to discuss, for example, inequality and stereotyping but want to avoid discussions around the trans vs women's rights debate. So yes we'd ask you to post accordingly.

I often wonder about how people who can't start a thread on a board that might have another thread on it that they don't want to contribute to.

Life must be very difficult for them.

Perhaps but isn't that policing people's titles?

yes. But isn't asking for topics pertinent to feminism to be hived off to a separate board policing people's feminism? (not aimed at you personally, but merely using your phrase as bouncing the idea).

I'm grateful that Mumsnet has allowed us to discuss sex/gender issues where others won't. I think the sex/gender question is so critical to feminism and interlinked with the issues that you cannot separate it out of the general forum.

If what is needed is some kind of sanitised sub-topic for those who don't want to engage with these issues, then I think that's fine but they really ought to be the new sub-forum, and sex/gender issues should be discussed on FWR.

An unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless, response from MNHQ. Again.

The Sex & Gender question is relevant to all of feminism and shouldn't be hived off somewhere.

Feminism topics, including those mainly or only about Sex & Gender, need to be visible in 'Active Threads' and 'Trending' so that people who are unaware of the issues can come across them.